2012年英语1考验真题附答案

13. [A]confirm [B]express[C]

cultivate

[D]off er

14. [A]

guarded

[B]followed[C]studied[D]tied

15. [A]concepts[B]theories[C]divisions[D]conceptions

16. [A]excludes[B]questions[C]shapes[D]controls

17. [A]dismissed[B]released[C]ranked[D]

distorted

18. [A]

suppress

[B]

exploi t

[C]

address

[D]

ignore

19. [A]

accessible

[B]

amiable

[C]

agreeable

[D]accou ntable

20. [A]by all mesns[B]atall costs[C]in a word[D]as a result

Section II Reading Comprehension

Part A

Directions:

Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosi

ng A, B, C or your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points)

Text 1

Come on -Everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half

invitation

and

half forcing, iswhat most of us think of when we hear the words

peer

pressu

re

. It usually leads to nogood-drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new

book Join the Club, Tina Rosenbergcontends that

peer

pressure

can also be

a positive force through what she calls the

social

cure, in which organizations

and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individualsimprove their

lives and possibly the word.

Rosenberg, the

recipient

of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the

s

ocial

cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking progra

m called Rage Against the Hazesets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South A

frica, an HIV-

prevention

initiative

known asLoveLife recruits young people t

o

promote

safe sex among their peers.

The idea seems

promising

，

and Rosenberg is a

perceptive

observer. Her

critique

of thelameness of ma

ny pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize

peer

pressure

for

healthy habits, and they

demonstrate

a seriously

flawed

understanding of p

sychology.”

Dareto be different, please don't

smoke!”

pleads one billboard

ca

mpaign

aimed at reducing smokingamong teenagers-teenagers, who desire

nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg arguesconvincingly that public-health

advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled atapplying

peer

p

ressure

.

But on the general effectiveness of the

social

cure, Rosenberg is less

persua

sive

. Join the Clubis filled with too much

irrelevant

detail and not enough

ex

ploration

of the

social

and biologicalfactors that make

peer

pressure

so po

werful. The most

glaring

flaw

of the

social

cure as it'spresented here is that

it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed oncestat

e funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces

lasting

chan

ges is

limited

and mixed.

There's no doubt that our

peer

groups

exert

enormous

influence on our beh

avior. An

emerging

body of research shows that positive health habits-as well

as

negative

ones-

spread

through networks of friends via

social

communic

ation

. This is a

subtle

form of

peerpressure

: we unconsciously

imitate

the

behavior we see every day.

Far less

certain

, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can s

elect our

peer

groups and steer their activities in

virtuous

directions. It's like

the teacher who breaks up thetroublemakers in the back

row

by pairing them

with better-behaved classmates. The

tactic

never really works. And that's the

problem with a

social

cure engineered from the outside: inthe real world, as

in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

21. According to the first paragraph,

peer

pressure

often emerges as

[A] a

supplement

to the

social

cure

[B] a stimulus to group dynamics

[C] an

obstacle

to school progress

[D] a cause of undesirable behaviors

22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates should

[A]

recruit

professional

advertisers

[B] learn from advertisers' experience

[C] stay away from

commercial

advertisers

[D]

recognize

the limitations of advertisements

23. In the author's view, Rosenberg's book fails to

[A]

adequately

probe

social

and biological factors

[B]

effectively

evade

the flaws of the

social

cure

[C]

illustrate

the functions of state funding

[D]

produce

a long-

lasting

social

effect

24. Paragraph 5shows that our

imitation

of behaviors

[A] is harmful to our networks of friends

[B] will

mislead

behavioral studies

[C] occurs without our realizing it

[D] can

produce

negative

health habits

25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of

peer

pressur

e

is

[A] harmful

[B]

desirable

[C]

profound

[D]

questionable

Text 2

A deal is a deal-

except

, apparently ,when Entergy is involved. The company,

a major energy

supplier

in New England, provoked justified

outrage

in Verm

ont last week when it

announced

it was reneging on a longstanding

commit

ment

to abide by the

strict

nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would n

ot

challenge

theconstitutionality of Vermont's rules in the federal court, as p

art of a

desperate

effort to keepits Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant run

ning. It's a stunning move.

The

conflict

has been surfacing since 2002, when the

corporation

bought V

ermont's onlynuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition

of receiving state

approval

forthe sale, the company agreed to seek

permiss

ion

from state regulators to

operate

past 2006, the state went a ste

p further, requiring that any

extension

of the plant's

license

besubject to Ve

rmont legislature's

approval

. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really

intended

to live by those commitments, or it sim

ply didn't

foresee

what would happen next. A

string

of accidents, including t

he

partial

collapse

of a coolingtower in 207 and the discovery of an undergr

ound pipe system

leakage

, raised seriousquestions about both Vermont Yank

ee's safety and Entergy's management- especially after thecompany made

mi

sleading

statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy's behavior, theVerm

ont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an

extension

.

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid bec

ause of the 2006

legislation

, and that only the federal government has regul

atory power over nuclear

legal

issues in the case are

obscure

: w

hereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states dohave some regulatory

aut

hority

over nuclear power,

legal

scholars say that Vermont case willoffer a

p

recedent

-

set ting

test of how far those powers

extend

. Certainly, there are

validconcerns about the

patchwork

regulations that could result if every stat

e sets its own had Entergy kept its word, that

debate

would be besi

de the point.

The company seems to have concluded that its

reputation

in Vermont is alre

ady so damagedthat it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. B

ut there should beconsequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic

trust. Entergy runs 11 otherreactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nu

clear station in Plymouth. Pledging to runPilgrim safely, the company has appl

ied for federal

permission

to keep it open for another 20years. But as the Nu

clear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company's

application

, itsh

ould keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

26. The

phrase

“reneging

on”(Line

.1) is closest in meaning to

[A] condemning.

[B] reaffirming.

[C] dishonoring.

[D] securing.

27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy

intended

to

[A]

obtain

protection

from Vermont regulators.

[B] seek favor from the federal

legislature

.

[C]

acquire

an

extension

of its business

license

.

[D] get

permission

to

purchase

a power plant.

28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its

[A] managerial practices.

[B]

technical

innovativeness.

[C] financial goals.

[D] business vision

29. In the author's view, the Vermont case will test

[A] Entergy's

capacity

to fulfill all its promises.

[B] the

mature

of states'

patchwork

regulations.

[C] the federal

authority

over nuclear issues .

[D] the limits of states' power over nuclear issues.

30. It can be

inferred

from the last paragraph that

[A] Entergy's business elsewhere might be

affected

.

[B] the

authority

of the NRC will be defied.

[C] Entergy will

withdraw

its Plymouth

application

.

[D] Vermont's

reputation

might be damaged.

Text 3

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiti

ng to be observedand collected by

objective

researchers who use the scientif

ic method to carry out their in the everyday practice of science, disc

overy frequently follows an

ambiguous

and

complicated

route

. We aim to b

e

objective

, but we cannot

escape

the

context

of our

unique

life experienc

e. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what wethink o

ur experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for

misinterpretation, error, and self-

deception

abound.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar

to newly stakedmining claims, they are full of

potential

. But it takes

collecti

ve

scrutiny

and

acceptance

to

transform

a discovery

claim

into a

mature

discovery. This is the

credibility

process, throughwhich the individual researc

her's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere,anytime. O

bjective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery

claim

becomes public, the discoverer receives

intellectual

credit

. But, unlikewith mining claims, the

community

takes

control

of what

happens next. Within the

complexsocial

structure of the scientific

commun

ity

, researchers make discoveries; editors andreviewers act as gatekeepers b

y controlling the publication process; other scientists use thenew finding to su

it their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists)receiv

es the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery

c

laim

worksit through the

community

, the

interaction

and

confrontation

b

etween shared and competingbeliefs about the science and the technology inv

olved transforms an individual's discovery

claim

into the community's

credibl

e

discovery.

Two paradoxes exist throughout this

credibility

process. First, scientific work

tends to focuson some aspect of

prevailing

Knowledge that is viewed as

inc

omplete

or incorrect. Littlereward accompanies

duplication

and

confirmati

on

of what is already known and believed. Thegoal is new-search, not re-sear

ch. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and

credible

discoverie

s that appear to be important and

convincing

will always be open to

challen

ge

and

potential

modification

or

refutation

by future researchers. Second

,

novelty

itself frequently provokes

disbelief

. Nobel Laureate and physiologis

t Albert Azent- Gyorgyi oncedescribed discovery as

“seeing

what everybody ha

s seen and thinking what nobody

hasthought.”

But thinking what nobody else

has thought and telling others what they have missedmay not change their vi

ews. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to beacce

pted and

appreciated

.

In the end,

credibility

“happens”

to a discovery

claim

- a process that corre

sponds to whatphilosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of th

e mind.

“We

reason together,

challenge

,

revise

, and complete each other's

reasonin

g

and each other's conceptions

ofreason.”

31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized

by its

[A]

uncertainty

and

complexity

.

[B]

misconception

and

deceptiveness

.

[C] logicality and

objectivity

.

[D] systematicness and

regularity

.

32. It can be

inferred

from Paragraph 2 that

credibility

process requires

[A]

strict

inspection

.

[B]shared efforts.

[C] individual wisdom.

[D]

persistent

innovation

.

aph 3 shows that a discovery

claim

becomes

credible

after it

[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.

[B]has been examined by the scientific

community

.

[C] has received

recognition

from editors and reviewers.

[D]has been frequently quoted by

peer

scientists.

34. Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree that

[A] scientific claims will

survive

challenges.

[B]discoveries today

inspire

future research.